Whatsup with the Windies / England!?

[marc71178]

Was he asked "are you appearing on SCD?" and replied "no"?
I didn't hear about that.
What, precisely, is wrong with appearing on reality TV? Have you ever heard of "planning for a career after your current one"?

Hmmm, so you think it's alright to tell your employer that you can't do a job for a reason when the reason is completely fabricated then do you?

 

[aussie]

When will people give up on wavell? Odds are that if you have been useless for 6 years in a row you will continue to remain useless for the rest of your career.
as far as Edwards is concerned, do you actually believe that he has the accuracy to be even remotely threatening in any form of the game? personally corey collymore and merwyn dillon are far better options.

Hinds could never have been useless for his entire career. His debut home series when he played Pakistan was very good, when he made those centuries vs Australia at home jsut after the WC & his performances in India in the ODI just before the WC were also good. To be he would be Gayle's best partner at the top.

I haven't seen the OD series in NZ but it seems as if Edwards really impressed during the OD series their but his figures just don't show. Having a bowler like him in their OD team has showed with Lee, Bond, Akhtar etc can give your bowling some fire-power. Maybe Collymore could challenge him still but not Dillon he isn't up to it..

 

[tooextracool]

Hinds could never have been useless for his entire career. His debut home series when he played Pakistan was very good, when he made those centuries vs Australia at home jsut after the WC & his performances in India in the ODI just before the WC were also good. To be he would be Gayle's best partner at the top.

odds are that anyone who plays 100 ODIs is going to have a few good games. question is what has hinds done other than those flash-in-the-pan efforts? Answer is that hes been miserable.

 

[Richard]

Hmmm, so you think it's alright to tell your employer that you can't do a job for a reason when the reason is completely fabricated then do you?

You can prove he didn't want to spend time with his family, can you?

 

[marc71178]

You can prove he didn't want to spend time with his family, can you?

If he wanted to spend time with his family, why appear on a TV program which required him to be away from them for such extended periods?

 

[tooextracool]

And guess who's just been called-up... yes, it's two more First-Class specialists (Shah and Solanki) both of whom have been tried and failed in ODIs before...
(Oh, that proven basket-case Batty has been picked, too, and that proven wayward Sajid Mahmood too)

sajid mahmood is indeed a strange case. he averages 20 for England A and 36 for lancashire. i havent seen him bowl but the only feasible explanation that i can think off is that he prefers bowling on slower wickets than he does in English conditions,

 

[tooextracool]

I'll grant you that Collingwood is a better ODI batsman than Vaughan and Strauss (plus can occasionally bowl OK) but I really don't see that having 2 good Tests (both on very flat pitches) qualifies him to be ranked above Strauss and Vaughan in the Test arena, however useless both have been recently.

maybe 2 tests dont prove much, but Strauss has been a dismal failure on the same wickets and has almost every possible weakness from technique to temperament in his game at the moment. Once bowlers realised that you dont feed him short balls outside the off stump or on the leg side, hes generally been hopeless and when you add that to the fact that he cant play spin to save his life, i'd say theres enough evidence. As far as Vaughan is concerned, as captain his record has been dismal for 3 years now, he plays about 1 good inning a series, and even that one usually involves an incredible amount of luck and dropped catches for him to succeed.

 

[tooextracool]

There's a lot of merit to Wavell Hinds in the middle order. You have an odd concept of useless.

what merit is there then? the kid has one good series, followed by 6 poor ones, a pattern that can be seen throughout his career.

Less ignorance please. At least watch the kid bowl in recent times before spouting your opinions. In New Zealand he has been quite superb for the most part.

i confess to not having watched him bowl in the recent ODI series. but in his one test so far, hes shown no improvement from his old wayward self(which wont change with that action anyways), going at 5 runs an over in the first innings in conditions that should have assisted him.

 

[superkingdave]

sajid mahmood is indeed a strange case. he averages 20 for England A and 36 for lancashire. i havent seen him bowl but the only feasible explanation that i can think off is that he prefers bowling on slower wickets than he does in English conditions,

Part of it is more to do with the fact that in the last 2 years he's hardly had a decent run in the side for Lancs, and when he does play, he's 4th or 5th bowler who doesn't really get a good bowl. (he bowled only 94 overs in six games last year). Old Trafford wasn't the fastest wicket around last year

 

[Goughy]

IMO the problem with the England ODI team is 2-fold.

Firstly is the attitude of the selectors. They seem to value ODI's far less than Tests (as I do) and see it as an opportunity to play younger players (exception being Gough) and feel they have more feedom to be experimental in selection.

There is a development feel to the squad and a "welcome to international cricket" attitude. The same problems or attitude (depending how you look at it) the Aussies are having with their seamers at the moment.

2ndly the successful teams in the world do not play bits-and-peices cricketers. Genuine allrounders can apply, but they play specialists. Guys like Kemp, Symonds and Clarke are their for their batting and their bowling is a bonus that really helps their teams. THey would, however be picked as specialist batters if they didn't bowl.

England need to pick their best 6 batsmen add Flintoff add the best keeper/batsman and then the best 3 allround specialist bowlers.

You then bat to 8, have 3+Flintoff bowling with batsmen such as Collingwood, Vaughan (if selected) etc making up the 5th bowler.

England picking players such as Wharf, Flemming, Clarke, McGrath, Ali weakens the team rather than strenghening.

Nothing slows the run rate like taking wickets and 3 specialsts + Flintoff are essential for Eng to be successful.

 

[Richard]

If he wanted to spend time with his family, why appear on a TV program which required him to be away from them for such extended periods?

It did?
I didn't take much interest in the thing.

 

[Richard]

sajid mahmood is indeed a strange case. he averages 20 for England A and 36 for lancashire. i havent seen him bowl but the only feasible explanation that i can think off is that he prefers bowling on slower wickets than he does in English conditions,

Which doesn't really make much sense.
Seriously, he's only played, what, 4 games for England A? It's not impossible that he just wasn't played very well in those 4 games. I've seen him bowl for Lancs several times and he's rarely looked other than innocuous.

 

[Richard]

maybe 2 tests dont prove much, but Strauss has been a dismal failure on the same wickets and has almost every possible weakness from technique to temperament in his game at the moment. Once bowlers realised that you dont feed him short balls outside the off stump or on the leg side, hes generally been hopeless and when you add that to the fact that he cant play spin to save his life, i'd say theres enough evidence.

To say he can't play spin to save his life is something of an exaggeration. He scored 2 centuries against teams including Warne. Yes, Warne also got him out quite a few times, but most of his problems in the subcontinent have been caused by seam, not spin.
I'd hardly say he was too badly to blame in Pakistan, either - got 1 from Rana that crept along the floor, a good inswinger from Sami (unusual, I know) and a fine Googly from Kaneria.
He's been pretty poor in the India tour, yes, and played one abysmal shot in Pakistan (dragging-on Rana) but of the pitches on which Collingwood has succeeded on Strauss played only 1.
I'd say most bowlers realise you don't deliberately feed any batsman short balls outside off - just some bowlers (quite a few ATM, in fact) aren't good enough to do it. Strauss in his first year was generally pretty good at putting away the bad delivery, whereas recently he's sometimes got out to those same deliveries he'd usually hammer for four.

As far as Vaughan is concerned, as captain his record has been dismal for 3 years now, he plays about 1 good inning a series, and even that one usually involves an incredible amount of luck and dropped catches for him to succeed.

I hardly see so - most of Vaughan's initial failure as captain was due to opening when dissuited. There was little wrong with his form when he first moved back to four. Only a fool would say he played poorly in South Africa, of his 7 failures, only 1 (second-innings Newlands) was a genuine terrible shot, plus 2 more indifferent ones.
It's only the last year that I've begun to be genuinely worried about him, because he was abysmal in The Ashes against some generally pretty average bowling (certainly got no more than 2 deliveries which were always likely or near-certain to take his wicket) and certainly was terrible in his 1 Test in Pakistan. Now we need to start worrying about his knees ending his career early.

 

[Richard]

IMO the problem with the England ODI team is 2-fold.

Firstly is the attitude of the selectors. They seem to value ODI's far less than Tests (as I do) and see it as an opportunity to play younger players (exception being Gough) and feel they have more feedom to be experimental in selection.

There is a development feel to the squad and a "welcome to international cricket" attitude. The same problems or attitude (depending how you look at it) the Aussies are having with their seamers at the moment.

2ndly the successful teams in the world do not play bits-and-peices cricketers. Genuine allrounders can apply, but they play specialists. Guys like Kemp, Symonds and Clarke are their for their batting and their bowling is a bonus that really helps their teams. THey would, however be picked as specialist batters if they didn't bowl.

England need to pick their best 6 batsmen add Flintoff add the best keeper/batsman and then the best 3 allround specialist bowlers.

You then bat to 8, have 3+Flintoff bowling with batsmen such as Collingwood, Vaughan (if selected) etc making up the 5th bowler.

England picking players such as Wharf, Flemming, Clarke, McGrath, Ali weakens the team rather than strenghening.

Nothing slows the run rate like taking wickets and 3 specialsts + Flintoff are essential for Eng to be successful.

Well... nothing keeps totals down like taking wickets.
Only way to keep run-rates down is bowling accurately.
Which Flemming? D'you mean Plunkett, or Tremlett? Both sure weaken the team.
Too many selectors seem to view ODI sides as a preparation for Tests - which they're not and never will be, because ODIs are not the same thing as Tests.
Valuing ODIs less than Tests is a recipe for disaster. Though I'd say it's more the attitude of the tour-scheduelers than the selectors. Often end-of-tour injuries have made big differences.

 

[open365]

maybe 2 tests dont prove much, but Strauss has been a dismal failure on the same wickets and has almost every possible weakness from technique to temperament in his game at the moment. Once bowlers realised that you dont feed him short balls outside the off stump or on the leg side, hes generally been hopeless and when you add that to the fact that he cant play spin to save his life, i'd say theres enough evidence. As far as Vaughan is concerned, as captain his record has been dismal for 3 years now, he plays about 1 good inning a series, and even that one usually involves an incredible amount of luck and dropped catches for him to succeed.

Ever heard of a thing called 'form'?

Strauss had a steallar start to his test career,it is only natural that somewhere along the line he's not going to score some runs and that place happens to be Pakistan and Inida,that doesn't mean that he isn't a good player on the sub-continent,it just means that his good form is running out.

Anyway,he still averages more than Collingwood and is a btter player.

 

[marc71178]

It did?
I didn't take much interest in the thing.

Training and practising all day every day?

Yes, that's "Spending time with the family"

 

[tooextracool]

Which doesn't really make much sense.
Seriously, he's only played, what, 4 games for England A? It's not impossible that he just wasn't played very well in those 4 games. I've seen him bowl for Lancs several times and he's rarely looked other than innocuous.

its 6 games actually, its just ironic that hes bowled well in almost everyone of those games while being quite miserable in county cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

To say he can't play spin to save his life is something of an exaggeration. He scored 2 centuries against teams including Warne. Yes, Warne also got him out quite a few times, but most of his problems in the subcontinent have been caused by seam, not spin.
I'd hardly say he was too badly to blame in Pakistan, either - got 1 from Rana that crept along the floor, a good inswinger from Sami (unusual, I know) and a fine Googly from Kaneria.
He's been pretty poor in the India tour, yes, and played one abysmal shot in Pakistan (dragging-on Rana) but of the pitches on which Collingwood has succeeded on Strauss played only 1.
I'd say most bowlers realise you don't deliberately feed any batsman short balls outside off - just some bowlers (quite a few ATM, in fact) aren't good enough to do it. Strauss in his first year was generally pretty good at putting away the bad delivery, whereas recently he's sometimes got out to those same deliveries he'd usually hammer for four.

a major reason why hes been getting out to pace as opposed to spin in the subcontinent is because by and large hes been dismissed before the spinners even came on. yes he scored 2 centuries against warne, one was on a first day pitch where even warne barely managed to turn the ball and the other at Old Trafford was the easiest innings hes probably played. By and large both the Australian and SA bowlers bowled to his strengths, instead of pitching the ball up to him. he has far too many flaws that i dont know where to even start. he plays with a crooked bat more often than not that usually doesnt come down straight enough, therefore inside edges a lot. Hs is extremely susceptible to the inswinger(or a barrage of deliveries pitched up to him early on in his innings), and the mohammad Sami ball was hardly anything unplayable despite the fact that it was somewhat unexpected for Sami to bowl a ball according to plan that was there to expose his weakness perfectly. Finally his temperament seems to have gotten worse than before and it appears as though he cant bat for even a short period of time without scoring boundaries and quick runs.

I hardly see so - most of Vaughan's initial failure as captain was due to opening when dissuited. There was little wrong with his form when he first moved back to four. Only a fool would say he played poorly in South Africa, of his 7 failures, only 1 (second-innings Newlands) was a genuine terrible shot, plus 2 more indifferent ones.
It's only the last year that I've begun to be genuinely worried about him, because he was abysmal in The Ashes against some generally pretty average bowling (certainly got no more than 2 deliveries which were always likely or near-certain to take his wicket) and certainly was terrible in his 1 Test in Pakistan. Now we need to start worrying about his knees ending his career early.

im not particularly bothered about whether the balls that got him out in SA were good balls or not poor shots. good players are expected to keep good balls out. any quality bowler bowls a fair amount of good deliveries. AFAIC Vaughan has failed miserably from the very first test match that he took over the captaincy and has never recovered since. certainly with both Vaughan and Strauss in the top order, and unreliable players like Flintoff, Pietersen and Jones in the middle order the england batting card looks extremely delicate.

 

[tooextracool]

Ever heard of a thing called 'form'?

Strauss had a steallar start to his test career,it is only natural that somewhere along the line he's not going to score some runs and that place happens to be Pakistan and Inida,that doesn't mean that he isn't a good player on the sub-continent,it just means that his good form is running out.

and its quite likely that the 'good form' will never return again. by and large the Australians during the summer worked out that he is susceptible to the ball pitched up to him, and while they exposed that weakness in the ODI series, no one bowled with any sort of discipline to expose it in the test series. nonetheless even then warne did enough to cause him plenty of problems in almost every test and by and large his innings at the Oval was something no one expected given how miserable he was for the rest of the series. his performances in pakistan havent showed signs of poor form they've showed poor temperament and poor technique.

Anyway,he still averages more than Collingwood and is a btter player.

averages dont always mean a great deal, in fact strauss' average has come down drastically in the last year. thats probably because most bowlers have realised that bowling short and wide to him wasnt going to work.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

what merit is there then? the kid has one good series, followed by 6 poor ones, a pattern that can be seen throughout his career.

The "kid" has spent the majority of his career opening the batting or shuffling throughout the order. He's not an opening batsman. I think that much is clear.

i confess to not having watched him bowl in the recent ODI series. but in his one test so far, hes shown no improvement from his old wayward self(which wont change with that action anyways), going at 5 runs an over in the first innings in conditions that should have assisted him.

He bowled poorly in the first innings, albeit with a slight ankle problem. That's no excuse though. It seemed like he cracked under the expectation, because it was no secret that New Zealand was most wary of him heading into the Test series.

In the second innings he bowled well though, and that was in good batting conditions. Surely you can give him that much credit? He's finally showing that he can be consistent. Whether he will or not is the question. Remember, he's still very young and inexperienced.